Trump's Leading Pick To Replace RBG Believes Husbands Should Rule Over Wives
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Credit: CSPAN / Youtube
William James
Amy Coney Barrett reportedly belongs to People of Praise, a group to which members must swear a lifelong loyalty oath.
One of the individuals reportedly topping President Donald Trump's shortlist to replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg belongs to a religious group that believes husbands should rule over their wives, among other highly conservative and traditional beliefs.
Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed by the Senate to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago in October 2017, is reportedly part of the Christian group People of Praise - a fact which never surfaced during her confirmation hearing, according to The New York Times.
Ms. Barrett told the senators that she was a faithful Catholic, and that her religious beliefs would not affect her decisions as an appellate judge. But her membership in a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise never came up at the hearing, and might have led to even more intense questioning.
Some of the group's practices would surprise many faithful Catholics. Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a "head" for men and a "handmaid" for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.
The Times spoke with legal scholars who concluded that loyalty oaths such as that required by the People of Praise could prove problematic for a judge.
The scholars said in interviews that while there certainly was no religious test for office, it would have been relevant for the senators to examine what it means for a judicial nominee to make an oath to a group that could wield significant authority over its members' lives.
"These groups can become so absorbing that it's difficult for a person to retain individual judgment," saidSarah Barringer Gordon, a professor of constitutional law and history at the University of Pennsylvania. "I don't think it's discriminatory or hostile to religion to want to learn more" about her relationship with the group.
According to Craig S. Lent, the group's leader, People of Praise is neither "nefarious" nor "controversial"; however, per group policy, he would not confirm or deny Barrett's membership status.
"We don't try to control people," said Mr. Lent, who is also a professor of electrical engineering and physics at Notre Dame. "And there's never any guarantee that the leader is always right. You have to discern and act in the Lord."
He later added, "If and when members hold political offices, or judicial offices, or administrative offices, we would certainly not tell them how to discharge their responsibilities."
The Times reported that Barrett and her husband do appear to be group members, though Barrett herself declined to comment on several occasions.
Current and former members of People of Praise said that Ms. Barrett and her husband, who have seven children, both belong to the group, and that their fathers have served as leaders. The community, founded in 1971, claims about 1,800 adult members in 22 locations in North America and the Caribbean.
Should Trump choose Barrett to replace Justice Ginsburg, certain Democrats could struggle to justify denying a 'yes' vote.
As CNN noted, five Democratic senators helped confirm her nomination last year:
She received 55 votes, including from Democrats Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Joe Donnelly (Indiana) and Tim Kaine (Virginia) as well as several moderate Republicans like Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).
While that group could make the argument that the Supreme Court is different than a Court of Appeals, it's a tough political position to be in given their past support.
Tags
Who is online
464 visitors
The Supreme Court is no place for fundamentalists!
Neither is a modern, civilized world.
Fundamentalism is a curse on all our houses.
The last thing we need is a fundie supreme...
Understatement.
A fundie wet dream.
No kidding...
The reach of Lucifer is long. His Shadow is longer.
Trump and this 'religious affinity' is puzzling. Even more puzzling are the religious folk who buy it.
This too. If Trump gets ( dis-elected ) and a true, fair investigation is launched into his foreign/domestic ties revealing he conducted himself for self protection could it be possible that all of his appointments would be declared null and void?
Apparently Amy Coney Barrett thinks little of herself as a woman, subservient to men. If this is the case why would she want to become a judge, thereby passing judgement on men who come before her court? Considering her beliefs, on what grounds does she deem herself capable?
There we go...
the character Assassination talking points have been given to the parrots. Hope you get some crackers
Picked up a new box of popcorn this weekend so I'm ready for it to start.
It's going to get vicious.
Democrats will be out for blood.
Going to be a fine line for them balancing against attacking her on her religion and not alienating some of their base, namely, some African Americans. Doesn't mean they won't vote for them, but a few might be moved to not vote for them.
I wonder if a Muslim woman were ever nominated, would her religious beliefs disqualify her?
Only if she is a conservative.
Aren't most Muslims considered rather conservative?
LOL.
Not Rashida Tlaib and llhan Omar. No doubt there are others.
I imagine that would depend upon how seriously the religious beliefs dictate her actions.
Okay.
How do we subscribe actions to beliefs/ That might be rather hard to prove. Even if you can show where ruling one way coincides with what the religion says, how do you prove that the conclusion of the ruling wasn't derived a different way?
And then we get to another problem.
How do we judge what is considered too seriously as far as the religious beliefs dictate?
Who decides it, and what is it based on.
Not being a smart ass, just genuine questions that are bound to come up if we do something like that.
I think that is far too dangerous slope for us to go down.
We agree. Well done.
not being a wise ass. but i am a little surprised.
I think we agree on abortion, too!
Never fear the hard/difficult questions. Sometimes they must be answered.
I will admit, I think I would rather see Barbara Logoa nominated before Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett was appointed to the Seventh Circuit Court in 2017, prior to that was teaching law at Notre Dame but had no judicial record at the time.
Barbara logoa was nominated to the Florida 3rd District Court of Appeals where she served for 10 years before a brief elevation to the Florida State Supreme Court. Was appointed to the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in 2019. She has more experience as a jurist, I would rather see her. But it's just my opinion and I'm not making the nomination so....
The first of the character assassinations have started, stay tuned for more on anyone Trump nominates. It's the Democrats playbook.